Rigid school discipline counterproductive

Friday

Jan 10, 2014 at 6:00 AMJan 10, 2014 at 7:19 AM

By Clive McFarlane TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

The United States Justice Department, after looking at the statistics nationwide, drew the conclusion that groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union drew a long time ago — that school districts, under the guise of "zero tolerance" polices, were criminalizing young people by increasingly deferring school discipline to the police and the courts.

In guidelines handed down this week, the Justice Department said the use of "school resource officers, school district police officers, contract or private security companies, security guards or other contractors, or law enforcement personnel," do not divest school administrators of their responsibility to protect students from discriminatory actions.

"To the contrary, the Departments may hold schools accountable for discriminatory actions taken by such parties," the Justice Department said.

It has long been known, but largely ignored, that the "zero tolerance" school polices, much like the expensive and highly ineffective "war on drugs," were doing more harm than good, and that the harm fell disproportionately on minorities.

The Justice Department, for example, found that although African-American students represent 15 percent of students in its study, they make up 35 percent of students suspended once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once and 36 percent of students expelled.

In addition, according to the Justice Department, "50 percent of who were involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American."

These numbers correspond to the ACLU findings on the Worcester public schools in 2009. Between 2005 and 2008, the ACLU found that 260 Worcester public school students were arrested, with Hispanics (120) and African Americans (101) representing 85 percent of those arrested. The two groups made up less than 50 percent of the student population at the time.

Chris Robarge, a coordinator for the ACLU, noted that Worcester in 2009 was suspending Hispanic students at a 29 percent rate, ranking the city among the 10th highest in the nation in that category.

"We are glad to see this recognition that the proliferation of zero-tolerance policies and misuse of exclusionary school discipline are fueling the school-to-prison pipeline," Mr. Robarge said.

"We hope this spurs a renewed commitment to combat racially discriminatory school discipline."

To its credit, Worcester has made concerted efforts over the years to decriminalize student discipline.

The Bullying Remediation and Court Education Project, created by Judge Carol Erskine, first justice of the Worcester Juvenile Court, which deals with bullying outside of the court setting, is an example. The program offers a daylong education workshop for students and parents.

The Justice Department, however, said a districts could be found at fault whether its policies intentionally discriminate against students, or whether the impact is disparate; that is, the policies are neutral, but disproportionately have impact on a particular group.

Worcester, for example, has a districtwide alternative school in which young people with behavioral issues are enrolled.

Should the feds find that one group of students is being heavily assigned to the alternative school, while another group with similar disciplinary record is not being assigned to the school, the district will be asked to justify its assignments.

There is a difference between disciplining young people and creating felons. Zero-tolerance polices lean to the latter, and the federal government is right in putting school districts on notice.